p.1 #1 · Sony RXR III - Full resolution samples please
Re - Sony RX1R iii
I am seriously thinking about buying this camera.
Does anybody have any Full Resolution Images ( 60mp ) of cityscapes, landscapes, street scenes taken at F4 / 5.6 / 8 with this camera that they would like to share please ?
I have looked at the samples on DPreview however I would like to view some more.
I’m trying to get an idea of IQ across the whole frame.
Thank you much.
Kind regards,
Adam.
Nov 11, 2025 at 12:49 PM
Fathernature4 Offline • [X]
p.1 #2 · Sony RXR III - Full resolution samples please
I’ve been using the RX1R III for a little while now and honestly, the image quality is superb across the frame, even at f/4 and f/5.6, sharpness and micro contrast really stand out. Corners stay crisp and that Zeiss glass just delivers a beautiful rendering
Nov 11, 2025 at 04:10 PM
Fathernature4 Offline • [X]
p.1 #3 · Sony RXR III - Full resolution samples please
I’ve got a few full res shots from city and landscape sessions I can dig up and share. They should give you a solid idea of how consistent the lens performs across different apertures and lighting conditions.
But it's under the paywall, IIRC it's $140 for a year, but if you're looking to drop almost $6K on a camera, may be worth it.
TLDR is that he ranks the lens as OK for landscapes (and that's a pretty high praise from him). Higher than all zooms he tested, but not as high as the best primes like APO Voigtlanders. Keeps shitting on Leica Q3 in comparison, quoting:
To be fair, this is vastly superior performance to ridiculous dilettante Leica Q3, with its fun-house-mirror distortion and grossly blurred images — the Q3 can never deliver a sharp image over most of the frame, because of the massive stretching required to correct its distortion. The 35/2 Sonnar is easily the better lens.
I paid to read his take on a couple of lenses I was interested in, and IMO it was worth it. He is _super_ critical of lenses, especially regarding the sharpness, field curvature, focus shift, and false color. For example, his commentary of 50mm f/1.4 GM is far worse than the 35/2 Sonnar in this Sony.
But it's under the paywall, IIRC it's $140 for a year, but if you're looking to drop almost $6K on a camera, may be worth it.
TLDR is that he ranks the lens as OK for landscapes (and that's a pretty high praise from him). Higher than all zooms he tested, but not as high as the best primes like APO Voigtlanders. Keeps shitting on Leica Q3 in comparison, quoting:
To be fair, this is vastly superior performance to ridiculous dilettante Leica Q3, with its fun-house-mirror distortion and grossly blurred images — the Q3 can never deliver a sharp image over most of the frame, because of the massive stretching required to correct its distortion. The 35/2 Sonnar is easily the better lens.
I paid to read his take on a couple of lenses I was interested in, and IMO it was worth it. He is _super_ critical of lenses, especially regarding the sharpness, field curvature, focus shift, and false color. For example, his commentary of 50mm f/1.4 GM is far worse than the 35/2 Sonnar in this Sony....Show more →
Super_critical ... but accurate and trustworthy? I have some doubts. It's very easy for anyone to post hyper-critical comments online as a means to generate attention. But it's another thing to be accurate and trustworthy. Both the Q3 lens and the 50/1.4 GM are pretty awesome in my experience, at least for actual work. No doubt the 35/2 Sonnar is pretty awesome too.
p.1 #9 · Sony RXR III - Full resolution samples please
@NJPhotographer I like his approach. He doesn't just publish opinions. He publishes a full-resolution image, always well done in terms of technique, and then begins dissecting it, describes what he's seeing. It's always about the image. His standards are unreasonable IMO, but you can't argue with his methods. Besides, there's always an option of just downloading the image and see for yourself.
I agree with the OP, it is surprisingly difficult to find high quality full-resolution images online. That's the primary value of his posts.
p.1 #10 · Sony RXR III - Full resolution samples please
Ok, thanks. Can't argue with good methods and posting full-resolution images. But "his standards are unreasonable" is perhaps just as important. Anyway, back to the Sony RXR III.
p.1 #11 · Sony RXR III - Full resolution samples please
NJPhotographer wrote:
Super_critical ... but accurate and trustworthy? I have some doubts. It's very easy for anyone to post hyper-critical comments online as a means to generate attention. But it's another thing to be accurate and trustworthy. Both the Q3 lens and the 50/1.4 GM are pretty awesome in my experience, at least for actual work. No doubt the 35/2 Sonnar is pretty awesome too.
Yeah, I obtained outstanding results from the Q3 that I shot for awhile, even when critically scrutinized. I found the GM 50mm f1.4 lens to be fairly stunning in nearly everyway.
A number of years ago, I subscribed to Digilloyd. I purchased two lenses that he had high praise for that turned-out to be real duds in my critical testing (and by other tester evaluations). Other lenses tested by Digilloyd seemed to relate well to my experiences. I found the majority of his reviews to be relatively accurate, but certainly not all. Also, he has a low tolerance level for some parameters that may not apply to the metrics incorporated into your shooting style and processing.
Virtually all lenses experience a production tolerance band in sharpness, de-centering, etc. Therefore, I have learned to not place my full trust in any single review results that only incorporate a single lens sample in the testing process.
I really miss Roger Cicala's reviews where he tested a minimum sampling of ten lenses. As part of his process, he also showed the production tolerance band.
